These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11648562)
21. Paternal interests in the abortion decision: does the father have a say? Diggins M Univ Chic Leg Forum; 1989; 1989():377-97. PubMed ID: 11656041 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. High Court, 5-4, affirms right to abortion but allows most of Pennsylvania's limits. Greenhouse L N Y Times Web; 1992 Jun; ():A1, A15-17. PubMed ID: 11647923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The relationship between abortion and child destruction in English law. Mackay RD Med Law; 1988; 7(2):177-83. PubMed ID: 3231012 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Jane L. v. Bangerter. U.S. District Court, D. Utah, C.D Fed Suppl; 1992 Dec; 809():865-80. PubMed ID: 11648409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Conn v. Conn. Indiana. Supreme Court North East Rep Second Ser; 1988 Jul; 526():958-63. PubMed ID: 12041233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The dilemma of the Webster decision: deconstitutionalizing the trimester system. Kindregan CP Report Hum Reprod Law; 1990; 25-26():276-92. PubMed ID: 11686167 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Father fails in attempt to stop girlfriend's abortion. Dyer C Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1987 Mar; 294(6572):631-2. PubMed ID: 3103839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. S.J. Res. 110: Human Life Federalism Amendment. Hatch OG Congr Rec (Dly Ed); 1981 Sep; 127(131):S10194-8. PubMed ID: 11658572 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Conn v. Conn. Indiana. Court of Appeals, First District Wests North East Rep; 1988 Jul; 525():612-6. PubMed ID: 12041181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the current state of abortion law. Berlin SI Second Opin; 1993 Jan; 18(3):104-9. PubMed ID: 11645221 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Paternal obligations during pregnancy: breaking new ground. Merrick JC Politics Life Sci; 1994 Aug; 13(2):251-3. PubMed ID: 11654646 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: the reaffirmation of Roe or the beginning of the end? Henry KS Univ Louisv J Fam Law; 1993-1994 Winter; 32(1):93-113. PubMed ID: 11660011 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Canada's Supreme Court rejects ex-lover's effort to halt abortion. Barron J N Y Times Web; 1989 Aug; ():A1, A3. PubMed ID: 11647413 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Roe v. Wade: what rights the biological father? Georgius EH Hastings Constit Law Q; 1974; 1(1):251-72. PubMed ID: 11664368 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The inadequacies of Australian abortion law. Cica N Aust J Fam Law; 1991 Mar; 5(1):37-68. PubMed ID: 11656112 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Jones v. Smith. U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida Fed Suppl; 1979 Jul; 474():1160-72. PubMed ID: 11648523 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Reproduction and the law. Erickson NS Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 11649200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Planned Parenthood Association v. Fitzpatrick. 4 Sep 1975. U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Fed Suppl; 1975; 401():554-94. PubMed ID: 11646052 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements violate right to privacy in abortion decision. Sanders JE Univ Kans Law Rev; 1976; 24(2):446-62. PubMed ID: 11664628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]